Translate

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

WHAT IS THE TRUTH ABOUT UKRAINE'S UNREST?

THE "MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE HAVE SPOKEN"...WHEN THEY SHOULD BE KEEPING THEIR OPINIONS TO THEMSELVES.

"We, the leaders of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States and the President of the European Council and President of the European Commission, join together today to condemn the Russian Federation's clear violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, in contravention of Russia's obligations under the U.N. Charter and its 1997 basing agreement with Ukraine," the leaders said in the statement.

AND PUTIN SAYS, "BITE ME! I'M THE GOOD GUY!"

OH, THE RATTLING OF SABERS...WHO ELSE IS SICK OF THAT?

A NATION IS IN CONFLICT WITHIN ITS OWN BORDERS AND HERE WE GO AGAIN...MAINSTREAM MEDIA MAKES A CIRCUS OUT OF A PRIVATE MOMENT.AS ONE WEBSITE PUT IT:<<One thing I’m sure of is that media accounts available in the United States are so tainted by anti-Russia and U.S. nationalist and capitalist interests that we have no idea of what is really happening in Ukraine.>><<Heard the One About Obama Denouncing a Breach of International Law? Breaches of international law are a serious matter… when some country other than the United States is accused. (Photo: Reuters)International law is suddenly very popular in Washington. President Obama responded to Russian military intervention in the Crimea by accusing Russia of a “breach of international law.” Secretary of State John Kerry followed up by declaring that Russia is “in direct, overt violation of international law.”

Unfortunately, during the last five years, no world leader has done more to undermine international law than Barack Obama. He treats it with rhetorical adulation and behavioral contempt, helping to further normalize a might-makes-right approach to global affairs that is the antithesis of international law.>>[NOTE: AND BEFORE THAT G.W. BUSH WAS KING...AND BEFORE THAT...WELL, BEFORE THAT, IT WAS EVERYONE WHO EVER SAT IN THE OVAL OFFICE...OR HELD THE TOP OFFICE OF ALMOST EVERY EUROPEAN NATION....MERE HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF. WE SEEM TO NEVER LEARN FROM PAST MISTAKES...NO ONE.]

IT'S ANOTHER "THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY" PLAYING OUT ON SCREENS ACROSS THE WORLD....EACH "SIDE" PUSHING THEIR AGENDA ON PRIME-TIME, AND IN WHATEVER NEWSPAPER WILL CARRY IT, AND ALL THE WHILE THE PEOPLE OF THE UKRAINE AND CRIMEA SEEM TO BE DOOMED TO BEING USED AS FUEL TO FAN THE FLAMES OF THE OLD, HATEFUL GAME OF "EAST vs WEST", "DEMOCRACY vs ANYTHING RUSSIA HAS".PLEASE, JUST DON'T GET HOOKED BY YOUR CHOICE OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA'S TAKE ON THIS.THERE IS A LONG HISTORY BEHIND THIS SITUATION.THERE IS MORE TO THIS THAN ANYONE OUTSIDE THE UKRAINE AND CRIMEA OR RUSSIA KNOWS.

ONE MAINSTREAM MEDIA TAKE, USA TODAY:<<U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman's office said it suspended upcoming bilateral trade and investment talks with Russia."Due to recent events in Ukraine, we have suspended upcoming bilateral trade and investment engagement with the Government of Russia that were part of a move toward deeper commercial and trade ties," the Froman's office said in a statement.The Russian warning came as British Foreign Secretary William Hague on Monday called the standoff in Ukraine the "biggest crisis in Europe of the 21st century."

In Washington, President Obama said Russia is "on the wrong side of history'' by intervening in Ukraine. He said he is considering diplomatic and economic steps to isolate Moscow."Over time this will be a costly proposition for Russia, and now's the time for them to consider whether they can serve their interests in a way that resorts to diplomacy as opposed to force," Obama said from the Oval Office.

The U.S. originally estimated that 6,000 Russian troops were dispatched to Crimea, but Ukraine's mission to the United Nations said Monday that 16,000 had been deployed. That stoked fears that the Kremlin might carry out more land grabs in pro-Russian eastern Ukraine.

Four Russian navy ships in Sevastopol harbor were blocking the Ukrainian anti-submarine warship Ternopil and the command ship Slavutych from leaving the dock, waiting for their commanders' responses, spokesman Maksim Prauta said.Vitko, the Russian admiral, was quoted by Russia's official Interfax news agency as calling on Ukraine forces in Crimea to surrender: "If they do not give up by 5 a.m. tomorrow, there will be a real storm of subdivisions and units of Ukraine's military forces all over Crimea.'' That deadline passed without immediate signs of movement.

Ukraine's interim prime minister in Kiev remained defiant."No one will ever give Crimea to anybody," Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatseniuk said at a press conference Monday reported by the Kyiv Post. "We realize that the Russian Federation has its interests but we address Russia: you have no right to protect your interests by violating ours."

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was heading to Kiev in an expression of support for Ukraine's sovereignty.>>

REALLY?REALLY???SOMEONE NEEDS TO JUST SEND KERRY TO ANY PLACE THAT ACTUALLY WANTS HIM THERE...AND I DON'T KNOW OF SUCH A PLACE, DO YOU?

<< In November President Viktor Yanukovych decided to pull out of a treaty with EU, an agreement many felt would have paved the way for the Ukraine to join the union. It looked like he was going to sign the agreement before performing a U-turn, which has made Ukrainian disappointment all the sharper. However the government would rather stay friendly with Putin in return for favourable treatment. The protesters think it would benefit ordinary people far more to be aligned with the EU and consider Yanukovych a man who only represents the interests of the richest.

The article goes on to define the demonstrations as ”more than a pro-EU movement”, one which represents popular resentment towards perceived government corruption and violent repression towards peaceful activists.>>

Mobile phone users near the scene of the riots received text messages from the state reading, “Dear subscriber, you are registered as a participant in a mass riot” it brought to home just how omnipresent - and ominous - surveillance technology in the 21st century has become.

The problem with the “popular protests against the government and for integration into the EU” narrative is that it omits crucial information regarding the role of the West is fomenting and orchestrating demonstrations such as these; a role which illuminates broader geopolitical objectives in the region and the extent to which intelligence agencies and their offshoot organizations meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations. Understanding the nature of soft power – the use of coercion and bribery – and the subversion and infiltration of grassroots political movements by NGOs and other organizations backed either directly or indirectly by the US government, helps us to more broadly understand why the unrest in Ukraine is reaching such a fever pitch.

The seemingly spontaneous 2004 Ukrainian “Orange Revolution”, sparked by alleged electoral fraud and allegations of voter intimidation, was led largely by a number of grassroots movements tied to political activists and student groups. Many of the groups involved, however, were funded and trained by organizations intimately linked to the US government. The foreign donors of these groups included the US State Department, USAID, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the Open Society Institute and the National Endowment for Democracy.

The candidate who emerged victorious in the wake of these widespread orchestrated protests, Viktor Yushchenko, was not only endorsed by the same institutions which wielded their influence over the protest movements themselves, he was also supported by the International Monetary Fund. A central banker by profession, Yushchenko was a firm advocate of implementing IMF monetary reforms and, equally crucially, an advocate of NATO membership. Before entering into Ukrainian politics he had worked at the US State Department,the Reagan White House, the U.S. Treasury Department, and the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. In short, it’s safe to say that he was a product of Washington, an image only exacerbated by his hostility towards Russia.

Certainly, intelligence agencies have historical form when it comes to covert operations and the manipulation of activists via social media – similar US-backed ”Colour Revolutions” have taken place in Georgia, Yugoslavia and elsewhere. The widespread political support for the protesters in Ukraine and the lack of condemnation for their use of violence would certainly add to the view that these protests are at least tacitly backed by the West, if not outright orchestrated. While none of this constitutes “proof” of outside interference, at the very least it is enough to raise suspicions. On the other hand, without firm evidence it is perhaps equally plausible that the support for the protesters is simply a case of making political capital out of the situation, stoking the flames of an already lit fire.

As the violence on the streets of Kiev continues, already spreading away from the capital, the Russian State Duma recently passed a resolution slamming foreign politicians and other players for interfering in Ukrainian internal affairs in an attempt to escalate the conflict. It’s a marked contrast to the rhetoric emerging from Washington and the EU, both of whom have expressed the possibility of intervening, with the US adopting a stance which hints at another planned ”regime change” on Russia’s doorstep.

Perhaps the most damning indictment of the West’s stance over Ukraine and their support for what they refer to as a “pro-democracy protest movement” is the profoundly anti-democratic leanings of the violent protestors at the vanguard of the assault on the Ukrainian authorities. Anyone familiar with the crisis in Syria and the attempts to topple President Assad will be all too familiar with the US’s willingness to get into bed with extremists of the worst possible nature in order to achieve their objectives.>>

WHEN THE MEDIA OVERSIMPLIFIES A SITUATION LIKE THIS, SAYING IT'S THE "GOOD GUYS vs. BAD GUYS", BE WARY OF FALLING FOR SO SIMPLE AN EXPLANATION.WE NEED REPORTING FROM THE UKRAINE/CRIMEA , BY THE PEOPLE OF THE UKRAINE/CRIMEA.WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THOSE WHO ARE THERE, AND HEAR EVERYONE'S TAKE ON THIS...THOSE ALL FOR REJOINING RUSSIA AND THOSE OPPOSED.IN THE END, THE PEOPLE THERE MUST DECIDE, AN ALL THE SABER-RATTLING, ALL THE POLITICAL MANEUVERS ANY NATION CAN MANAGE SHOULD CEASE.LET THE PEOPLE OF UKRAINE/CRIMEA WORK OUT THEIR OWN PROBLEMS...LIKE AMERICA DID, LIKE BRITAIN HAS DONE.WE SIMPLY NEED TO BUTT-OUT, ALL OF US WHO ARE NOT CITIZENS OF THOSE PLACES.WE NEED TO LOOK LONG AND HARD AT THE NATIONS IN WHICH EITHER RUSSIA OR THE USA HAVE SUPPORTED "REGIME CHANGES".I SEE NO PEACE IN THOSE PLACES TONIGHT.THAT SHOULD TELL US SOMETHING, SHOULDN'T IT?THE "SUPER-POWERS", THE "BIG NATIONS" NEED TO STOP ROLLING THE DICE FOR THE WHOLE WORLD. AMERICA NEEDS TO STOP SHOVING THEIR AGENDA OWN FOREIGN THROATS...DITTO FOR EVERY NATION ON EARTH.MAKE THINGS WORK WHERE YOU LIVE...LEAVE THE REST OF THE WORLD ALONE TO DO THE SAME!LET THE PEOPLE OF EACH NATION CHOOSE!SEE HOW THAT WORKS OUT FOR A CHANGE.

AS ALWAYS, POLITICS IS MIXED WITH "BIG BUSINESS":U.S. Money Helped Opposition in Ukraine December 10, 2004 By MATT KELLEY WASHINGTON (AP) – The Bush administration has spent more than $65 million in the past two years to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition leader…

AND THE TRUE HISTORY OF THAT REGION?<<Washington Post columnist David Ignatius criticized Putin’s actions on Face the Nation, saying Ukraine "is not prepared to go backwards" to a Russian regime. He then offered up some context about Crimea’s history.
"Crimea became part of Ukraine only in 1954," he said. "Crimea was
historically part of Russia, and (Nikita) Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine
in a gesture that mystified some people."
Ignatius was correct in saying that Ukraine has only controlled the
Crimean Peninsula since 1954 -- a claim we also heard from U.S. Rep.
Mike Roger, R-Mich., on Fox News Sunday. Not up on your Soviet history? We’ll review the facts.
Crimea is an eastern Ukrainian peninsula
located on the Black Sea. It’s connected to the rest of the country by a
small strip of land. Out of its 2 million residents, about 60 percent
identify as Russian. That’s the highest concentration of Russian
speakers in Ukraine. Although the territory belongs to Ukraine, Russia
stations part of its Black Sea fleet in Sevastopol as part of a
pre-existing agreement between the two countries.
As Ignatius pointed out, Crimea hasn’t always been part of Ukraine.
Here’s a quick rundown of what’s happened in the region since the
Ottoman Empire used the peninsula as a hub for slave trade.

1783: Russia annexed Crimea.

1853: The Crimean War began, lasting three years.
Russia lost to an alliance of the Ottoman Empire, France, Britain and
Sardinia. Crimea remained part of Russia.

1917: Crimea briefly became a sovereign state before becoming a base for the White Army of anti-Bolshevik forces in the Russian War.

1921: The peninsula, now called the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, became part of the Soviet Union.

1942: Nazi Germany took control of Crimea.

1944: Joesph Stalin forcibly deported all Muslim
Tatars, a group of 300,000 who had lived on the peninsula for centuries,
due to members’ alleged cooperation with Germany during World War II.
Many returned to Crimea in the 1980s and 1990s.

1945: After World War II, the autonomous Soviet
republic was dissolved and Crimea became a province of the Soviet Union
called the Crimean Oblast.

1954: Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev transferred the Crimean Oblast to Ukraine. It’s often reported that it was a gesture of goodwill from Khrushchev, who had Ukrainian roots.

1991: The Soviet Union collapsed. Many expected
President Boris Yeltsin, the new president of the Russian Federation, to
take Crimea for Russia. But he didn’t bring it up during negotiations with Ukraine.

1997: Ukraine and Russia signed a treaty that
allowed Russia to keep its fleet in Sevastopol. The agreement’s since
been extended, so the fleet is set to remain there until at least 2042.

As for Ignatius’ claim that Khrushchev’s decision to give Crimea to Ukraine in 1954, we found literature to support that. >>

Relations between the two country's Governments are complex. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin allegedly declared at a NATO-Russia summit in 2008 that, if Ukraine were to join NATO, his country could contend to annex the Ukrainian East and Crimea.Russia is strongly opposed to ANY eastward expansion of NATO. During a NATO conference in Hungarian parliament
on 20 November 2008 Deputy Assistant Secretary-General Aurelia Bouchez
said: "We should not make a choice between NATO enlargement and Russia
as we need both"[76] and NATO's Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told a conference in Spain
twelve days later: "The emergence of independent states within the
former Soviet space is a reality. The ability of these states to
determine their own future is a litmus test for the new Europe. Do we
have to choose between good relations with Russia and further
enlargement? My answer is no - we will not choose, will not sacrifice
one for the other. It would bring new dividing lines."

THE CHOICE MAY HAVE TO BE MADE, BUT ALL CHOICES BELONG TO THE UKRAINE'S PEOPLE, NOT ANYONE ELSE.

WHILE RUSSIA CLAIMS RIGHTS IN BOTH CRIMEA AND UKRAINE, UKRAINE ALSO HAS CLAIMS.

territories of Rostov Oblast near Taganrog (Tahanrih) were transferred to the Russian SFSR in 1924

Government of the Russian SFSR passed northern territories of Ukraine to the Lithuanian-Belorussian SSR in 1919

Government of the Soviet Union sanctioned creation of the Moldavian Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic in 1924 in the western regions of the Odessa Governorate eventually transferring those territories to Moldova (today Transnistria)

A VERY COMPLEX, VERY OLD RELATIONSHIP...ONE BEST WORKED OUT BY THE PARTIES INVOLVED.THE ILLEGITIMATE U.N. SHOULD STAY OUT, AS SHOULD THE USA.